Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

Court approval of a sale process in receivership or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) proposal proceedings is generally a procedural order and objectors do not have an appeal as of right; they must seek leave and meet a high test in order obtain it. However, in Peakhill Capital Inc. v.

In its recent decision in Chandos Construction Ltd. v Deloitte Restructuring Inc., the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) affirmed the place of the ‘anti-deprivation rule’ in Canadian common law and provided guidance on its application.[1] This rule invalidates contractual terms that would remove value from a debtor’s estate and reduce the assets available for distribution amongst creditors.

The global COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with an ill-timed crude oil price war between Saudi Arabia and Russia, has in a matter of mere weeks materially disrupted the global marketplace. While we are months or years away from understanding the full impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the economy at large, it is increasingly likely that we may be sliding into a recessionary period. We anticipate that businesses will need to restructure in one way or another to deal with immediate liquidity needs, or long-term financial health.

Canada and Brazil share a long and significant common history of business and investment. Over a century ago, Canadian companies were heavily involved in building electrical and other infrastructure in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. Today, over 50 public companies listed on the TSX and TSX-V have substantial assets and operations in Brazil. In 2018, direct investment between the two countries exceeded $14 billion in each direction.

“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.

A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).

While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]

An asset purchaser’s payments into segregated accounts for the benefit of general unsecured creditors and professionals employed by the debtor (i.e., the seller) and its creditors’ committee, made in connection with the purchase of all of the debtor’s assets, are not property of the debtor’s estate or available for distribution to creditors according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — even when some of the segregated accounts were listed as consideration in the governing asset purchase agreement. ICL Holding Company, Inc., et al. v.